The Most Hypocritical State of the Union Speech. Ever.

The opening: "You and I serve our country in a time of great consequence."

The reality:

• "First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes."

Now that the Democrats control Congress, I put the monkey on their back.

• "Next, there is the matter of earmarks... In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion."

Now that the Republicans no longer control Congress, we can end this practice.

• "The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America’s children — and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law." 

This is an academic failure, noted by scandals and cheating and it is designed to move money into the private schools owned and operated by the President's supporters.

• "Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology... In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists... "

Proving he knows the difference between Sunni and Shia after four years.

• "I am proposing that all the income tax reductions set for 2004 and 2006 be made permanent and effective this year."

He wants to continue the massive unfair redistribution of wealth that will create a permanent plutocracy in the United States.

• "I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by 4 percent next year -- about as much as the average family's income is expected to grow." 

Yes, and most of it will go for defense and not for food, health, and shelter, or even national security.

• "My budget will commit an additional $400 billion over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare."

The last time he did something like this the money went to the pharmaceutical companies.

• "In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles." 

More money for his corporate friends who should be shelling out their own corporate dollars to pay for this research-as though they didn't already have enough from the tax breaks.

• "I  propose a $450-million initiative to bring mentors to more than a million disadvantaged junior high students and children of prisoners. Government will support the training and recruiting of mentors..." 

More money for his right wing religious supporters.

• "Yet for those already addicted, the fight against drugs is a fight for their own lives. Too many Americans in search of treatment cannot get it. So tonight I propose a new $600-million program to help an additional 300,000 Americans receive treatment over the next three years." 

More money for his right wing religious supporters.

"This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won...If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country — and, in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. For America, this is a nightmare scenario." 

From the Reverend Jesse Jackson:

For the cost of every 1½ months in Iraq -- about $15 billion -- we could provide health insurance for one year for 9 million children who now go without.

or

To make us more secure, five days in Iraq would pay for radiation detectors needed at all U.S. ports, rejected thus far due to cost. Two days would pay for detectors to scan 100 percent of all cargo on passenger planes. Two more days would pay to make emergency radio systems interoperable -- which still hasn't happened five years after Sept. 11. Five days would allow us to double federal spending for police on our streets.

That is the ultimate nightmare.

Comments

[Brian]

Paul, check out our extended Education comment on NCLB reforms to your earlier State of the Union post.

Brian and Beth

[Dan Sebald]

* "Next, there is the matter of earmarks..."

Now that the Republicans no longer control Congress, we can end this practice.

--

Significant legislation has already passed both the House and Senate:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/sb_01-19.html

According to Shields and Brooks, substantive on the matter of reforms. Senate Republicans put up opposition at first but then all but two supported the bill on second thought.

So, this one is pretty certain to come across the president's desk, and with such popular support a veto is not in the cards. Therefore, jump out in front and make it appear as though it was the president's initiative.

[Russ]

Paul
Based on your comments you must be an admirer of Karl Marx. Most of used learned something when the Soviet Union's 70 year experiment with Communism collapsed. What did you learn? What do you think the top 1% should pay 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%? What will you do when revenue to the treasury declines because the wealth, like John Kerry's wife, shelter their income from excessivly high tax rates.

[Dan Sebald]

The 70 year history and failure of the Soviet Union is a little too complex to boil down to failing to find an appropriate tax rate.

What I learned is that a "country" (empire ostensibly) wealthy only in certain minerals covering vast tracts of land with a single party government that keeps a lot of the wealth the country produces (contrary to the founding principles) and spends much of its resources on the military (and in the process wreaks environmental destruction) and has a currency worthless in the rest of the world will go broke. A big part of what drove the Soviet Union to the brink--apart from imperial endeavors--was that we (the U.S.) outspent them in the cold war, which had an effect on our own economy (and environment) as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Debt_by_U.S_presidential_terms

The U.S. government has been operating on deficits and debt for a long time. A government such as U.S.S.R. couldn't do such a thing because their currency wasn't something that could be traded on markets.

The U.S. economy was good in the 90s under a balanced budget. There was a market bubble, but not the biggest problem in the world. Then came the Bush administration, purposefully talking down the economy, in my opinion. Point being that one can find counter-examples all over in economics.

Top 1% tax rate? Well, consider that many of the top 1% get their earnings in stock which probably falls under capital gains and is taxed at 10-15%? If we bump that up to 40% (for sake of argument, i.e., something nearer typical income tax rates) and remove the cap on social security self employment tax we'd solve the social security problem so many Republicans are worried about. Then we can talk about economic stability. Politicos talk about reforming the tax code, but it's all a game of shifting the bill around from one economic class to another to find out who ultimately pays for stuff like wars.

Why can't a person who makes an outrageous amount of money not pay back the system that enables them to make an outrageous amount of money?

What to do when miserly tax dodgers start hiding cash in their mattresses? Cut military spending.

I'd be interested if there are any surveys of fairly well to do regarding their opinion about the need for tax cuts.